Don't count him out: as soon as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann leave the race, the former speaker and Rick Santorum will split the anti-Romney vote.

In Iowa last night, it was finally Rick Santorum's turn in the spotlight, as he defied the odds and challenged frontrunner, Mitt Romney. Below the medal winners,
though, Newt Gingrich quietly slipped into fourth place and lived to fight another day. Well, not that quietly -- Newt never really does anything quietly. His closing speech in Iowa was laden with harsh attacks on Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, praise for Rick Santorum, and the kind of grandiose bluster that we've grown to expect from him.

Gingrich's campaign was left for dead once before. After a poorly timed Greek cruise with wife Callista sent much of his senior staff fleeing, the former speaker seemed destined to be a faux-scholarly debate sideshow. On the basis of those debate performances, however, Newt climbed to the top of the polls both nationally and in early states like Iowa and South Carolina, only to be sent plummeting back to Earth by several million dollars in negative ads unattributed to any candidate or campaign (thanks to Citizens United). There is beautiful irony, of course, in Gingrich -- a pioneer of nasty campaigning and a vocal supporter of the Citizens United decision -- getting destroyed by negative ads. The media and Gingrich's fellow presidential aspirants seem ready to write Newt off once again, but in some ways, he's in a stronger position now than when he was riding high in the polls. Could Newt make another comeback?

It may be hard to imagine, but humor me. You're riding high in the polls but
have no money in the campaign coffers and no on-the-ground operation. As you contemplate the millions stashed in Romney, Paul, and Perry's campaign accounts and super PACs, you know you're staring down the barrel of a fully loaded gun. What do you do?

Facing this set of circumstances, Newt decided to try to take the high road. This strategy has been widely panned, but what was his alternative? He didn't have a well-funded super PAC to go after Romney anonymously, and his own campaign was lacking the funds needed to neutralize the incoming attacks. A lull in the previously packed debate calendar meant that Gingrich had no forum to fight back effectively. Given this chessboard, he took his best available move by attempting to paint himself as a positive campaigner, the noble man-above-the-fray. At his apex, Speaker Gingrich was polling at about
27 percent in Iowa. After absorbing rounds of negative attacks to the tune of probably $10 million, he still managed 13 percent of the vote and a respectable fourth place finish.

At least in the Hawkeye State, Newt seems to have arrested his decline without any debates or significant campaign expenditures. Arguably the only electable candidate to finish ahead of him was Romney, as Paul is still a niche candidate and Santorum has virtually no organization outside Iowa. What's more, Newt's Iowa slide happened early enough for political observers to adjust their expectations. Now fourth place can be painted as a win.

The other big development out of Iowa is the likely departure of both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Perry's expected exit makes two things clear. First, we will all spend less time cringing in the remaining debates. And second, there is no way Perry will endorse or help Romney in any way. There's just too much bad blood between the two candidates. Perry and Bachmann's former supporters are also unlikely to move to the moderate Romney in any significant numbers, and with only 34 percent of Republican voters describing Ron Paul as an "acceptable candidate", it seems unlikely that they will move to Paul.

That leaves Gingrich and Santorum to split Perry and Bachmann's backers. If Santorum's surge is anything like that of the other previous frontrunners, he will now be subjected to intense scrutiny and attacks that badly damage him before he gets together the organization and funds to respond. It's certainly possible then that Gingrich could be the primary beneficiary of the movement away from Perry and Bachmann.

Gingrich has another thing going for him: more debates! Whatever you think of Newt, his super-confidence, agile mind, and sharp elbows are perfectly suited to the debate stage. His decline partially corresponded to the end of the pre-Iowa debating season. But not to worry, January is a cornucopia of America's newest favorite reality show! Having very publicly tried the high road, Gingrich is now well-positioned to take the gloves
off and go after Romney in a way that no candidate save Barack Obama has done
to any effect. In a way, it's unbelievable what a free pass Romney has been given thus far given his many vulnerabilities. The incentive for candidates has been not to attack the presumptive frontrunner but rather to go after the Romney alternative of the moment.

Those days may be over, though. Newt clearly signaled in his speech last night in Iowa that he was going on the attack against Mitt, stating: "We're not going to run
30-second gotchas. But I do reserve the right to tell the truth and if the truth seems negative, that may be more a comment on his record than it is on politics. So this is going to be a debate that begins tomorrow morning in New Hampshire and and will go on for a few months." Despite his protests to the contrary, Gingrich can engage in negative politics with the best of them.

Though we don't have updated fundraising totals yet, Newt also likely has a little more coin in his coffers than he did going into Iowa. Already, he's up with a full-page ad in the New Hampshire Union Leader comparing his positions to those of Mitt Romney. Having more cash to respond to attacks and frame the debate
will leave Newt less subject to the whims of the debate schedule and in greater
control of his message -- though he will certainly not be in a position to match
Romney dollar for dollar.

Finally, the early state primary calendar is favorable for Newt. Romney has set expectations in New Hampshire so high that anything other than a large margin of victory would be a disappointment. Next up is South Carolina, a tough place for Romney because of the large evangelical population, and theoretically a good place for a Southern movement conservative like Gingrich. Gingrich has also polled well in Florida and has worked to appeal to older voters. Voters are now left with two real alternatives to Mitt Romney: Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. As for Santorum, David Corn put it best: "Mr. Santorum, here is a helmet, a flak jacket, and a roll of bandages. Buckle up, sir." He's likely in for a rough couple of weeks. Will Republican voters finally concede that they have to vote for Mr. 25 Percent? Or will they give Gingrich one more try? It's worth remembering the words of the Gingrich campaign during his first turn in the 2012 political ditch: "Out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead." It's just possible that Gingrich will emerge once again.

About the Author

Krystal Ball is a Democratic strategist and 2010 candidate for a U.S. House seat from Virginia. She is a commentator on politics for MSNBC and at the Huffington Post. She can be found online on Facebook and at Krystalonline.com.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.